John Howard’s dramatic re-entry in the political debate is notable for two reasons – the former PM has steadfastly refused requests for anniversary-type interviews, and he has also said repeatedly he would not “do a Keating” by commenting on domestic affairs, save to defend his record.
Howard criticised Rudd more generally for failing to undertake more ambitious structural reforms during his ”honeymoon” as a new prime minister. He said that the time for unpopular or difficult reforms should always be in the first term for new prime ministers, who tended to be ”cut a lot of slack” by the public.
Mr Howard told Fox that: “There should be additional commitments from all of the countries, including my own, that have troops there at present.”
In a challenge to MPs, the former prime minister said politicians who wanted respect for parliament should not “hand over any further decision-making authority to others”.
“You were elected to make decisions, and you should not shirk that decision-making responsibility by transferring it to others,” Mr Howard said.
The former leader said he still followed politics ”with a close and sentimental interest. I’d like you to operate on the basis that this can be a one-term government,” Mr Howard said.
”This political scene is unpredictable.” He said that when the Gippsland by-election took place he was visiting the Globe theatre in London. He spoke to Dr Nelson and said to forget any other comparison. This was ”eerily analogous” to the 1973 by-election in which Philip Ruddock was elected to Parliament early in the life of the short-lived Whitlam Government.
The former Prime Minister said he supported Dr Nelson’s stand on taxes, saying he had every right to oppose Labor’s proposed increases in taxes
“(The second is) the new Prime Minister doesn’t seem to have a theme. Politics is about conviction. Politics is not just about the joy of being in government.
“But you seem to get the impression that my successor is more interested in the process of government than the opportunity of leadership that government provides.”
I do not think the word “rare” means what people who report on John Howard think it means.
41 Comments
You’ve got to love the way that the lying rodent uses the term ‘my successor’ when referring to Kevin Rudd.
It’s a very sad and pathetic display of the way in which Howard relates everything back to himself. He simply can’t bring himself to say “the Prime Minister.”
He’s going to die a very sad and bitter individual, and I for one won’t shed a tear.
reb said “…Howard relates everything back to himself.”
There is the story, possibly apocryphal, of one of his staffers finishing up after the election. She was cleaning out her office and not surprisingly she was in tears. She’d just lost her job and in the changed political climate was unlikely to find another. Regardless of your politics, you’d have to feel sorry for her.
Howard saw that she was in distress and decided to comfort her. He walked up to her, put his arm around her and said… “Don’t worry. I’ll be alright.”
I reckon it is good that Howard keeps making comments in the media. It just reminds everyone why we voted him out of office – and out of his seat.
The best thing about McKew ousting the lying rodent is she denied him the opportunity to give a long-drawn out, nation-wide retirement tour and parliamentary farewell speech. For that I am forever grateful, and suspect that that is the reason he is so bitter and hateful towards the government.
Every time he pops up i’m reminded that he was denied the chance to go out a winner. lol.
reb, JWH did the same against Keating in the lead up to the 96 election. He would never refer to PJK as Prime Minister and most of the time used the term ‘my opponent’ a lot of people including myself found it disrespectful. Rudd did the same to JWH occasionally in the lead up to 07 to get under JWH’s skin, i suspect it worked.
Good one Nigel M, can’t wait to tell to Howard Huggers at the local.
Howard broke his promises while he was in politics. Why should he keep his promises now that he is out of politics? Or is he not yet out of politics?
According to Margot Seville’s “Battle for Bennelong”, Howard could never bring himself to refer to Maxine McKew by name during the campaign, either. It was always “my opponent” or something similar.
The man’s an emotional midget.
I’m with Joni: Zombie Howard is good for democracy.
Love this bit of objective observation from Penbo.
“But the many millions of Australians who still voted for Howard in 2007 – and more disturbingly for Labor, some swinging voters who gently saw him off with no major sense of animosity – will have been interested to hear the input from the man from the toughness side of the ledger”
Penbo also seems disturbed that some people vote Labor and asume that thos who had enough of the lies from JWH in 07 would want to hear from him again.
Another good reason for Mr Howard to continue breaking yet another “non-core promise”; it might provide a good source of policy for the Rudd government.
Whenever Mr Howard speaks out against an issue, you can almost guarantee that it is the moral, humane, right thing to do. All the PM has to do is listen to Mr Howard an then do the complete opposite.
(eg. one of the articles linked above is Mr Howard decrying the need for a bill of rights in Australia. It must logically follow that a bill of rights is the right way to go and hence should be vigorously pursued by the government.)
Win-win, I reckon.
Hell, we deal with all the other past PM’s having their two-bob’s worth in the media, why not JWH as well? Sometimes you can’t sit back and ignore your ideology – clearly the case here, despite what he promised after the last election.
After being in the drivers seat for 10 years, sometimes you find it hard to let it go. The media could just ignore him. But he’s a drawcard apparently. I enjoy his interjections as much as Keatings (Keatings make me laugh more though – but not in the way he probably wants).
The little fella must be might cheesed off that he hasn’t landed a prime ambassadorial posting. Washington would’ve been perfect for him … except of course that he once claimed Osama bin Laden would be praying for Obama to win.
Hmmm. Burkina Fasa, maybe?
“[Howard] has also said repeatedly he would not “do a Keating” by commenting on domestic affairs,”
Ah yes, I’ve seen that Howard biopic, “The Never Ever, Never Ending Never Ever Story”, the synopsis of which seems somewhat apposite.
“The majority of the story takes place in the parallel world of Fantastica , a world being destroyed by the Nothing, which represents and constitutes people’s lack of imagination in the real world.”
“Hell, we deal with all the other past PM’s having their two-bob’s worth in the media, why not JWH as well? “
Well baldrick, people tend to pissed off and try to bring him to book on account of him saying he wouldn’t indulge in such a practice.
Core and non core still beats in the heart of ‘the Rodent’. (Copyright George Brandis.)
Baldrick, I look at threads like this as necessary therapy for all those who did that involuntary, prolonged yippy cat-screech when they saw John Howard in the news over the weekend. They need a place to gently coax each other out from behind the kitchen door and be able to repeat “lying rodent” over and over. Like I said. Therapy.
A loathesome creature, forgotten before he was even yanked off stage. Why anyone even bothers to attach starter leads to its non existent heart is beyond me, except as a warning that, as morally myopic & ethics free as Krudd is, he is still orders of magnitude better than the rodent.
Lee Harvey #12
I know the perfect ambassadorial posting for Howard.
Republic of Cabina
I loved that after the little battler had said Rudd’s policy was inviting these people in one of the coalition (I think it was Abbot but don’t quote me, it was hot and I was distracted) said that Rudd’s policy seemed harsher than the Howard policy!!!
“And still they came”
#15
And what’s become clear too is that the Coalition-rusted-ons like Pedro and Baldrick need their own therapy from the likes of Bolt, Akerman, Albrechtsen, etc. And they’re all too willing to provide it in the symbiotic relationship that delivers them notoriety and an income at the expense of reality.
Bolt used to go on about his abhorrence to leftist group think – we don’t hear too much about it nowadays that he’s established his own BoltThinkTank.
#15
“lying rodent”
Pedro, correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it Costello who mentioned lying by Howard in regards to the ill-fated non core succession promise?
Wasn’t it Brandis who referred to Howard as a ‘rodent’?
So far I haven’t seen either of those two unreconstructed yippy cat-screeching pinkoes behind the kitchen door … but I’ll double check just in case.
OTOH I did hear someone mumbling,
“Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away… “
Might have been another yippy cat-screeching pinko.
“And what’s become clear too is that the Coalition-rusted-ons like Pedro and Baldrick need their own therapy from the likes of Bolt, Akerman, Albrechtsen, etc”
I just want to chime in and stick up for baldrick, I’m not so sure that ‘rusted-on’ would be a good description he/she seems OK to me, happy to debate and is the sort of poster that helps this place not be a circle-jerk, dissenting views by the likes of baldrick should be welcomed.
I don’t want to be a goody two shoes because I aint but as far as I can tell baldrick is OK.
RobJ,
You misunderstood me if you think that I am trying to silence anyone. I’m merely pointing out that the need to receive affirmation for ideology and to have a home amongst one’s tribe is very evident amongst the conservatives – despite their apparent protestations to the contrary.
Honestly, I’d be heartily embarrassed to claim any of Bolt, Akerman, Albrechtsen, Blair, Henderson, etc as representatives of my beliefs – and I’m talking style here, rather than substance (we all know what the substance consists of). And yet the only voice I ever here as being similarly strident in their partisanship for the “Left” is Adams. Then the conservatives throw in anyone else who happens to strongly support a “leftist” sentiment (read this as show some compassion and empathy) at any given time.
I always accepted that perhaps there was some leftist bias in the media – but I always ascribed that to people’s willingness to feel and show compassion for news stories that do not directly effect them. When it comes to issues of self-interest, Australians and the Australian media are conservative. Sadly.
RobJ@21 – I tend to think that I can see arguments from both sides and have a look at the validity of both points of view. Considering the coallition is at the moment, in my opinion, unelectable until they sort themselves out, I tend to think that the term “rusted-on” certaintly doesn’t apply to me. I currently feel like no party represents all my views, but hey, that’s not unusual. I certainly do not think Australia went backwards in a whole-of-view analysis under JWH’s term – you may have disagreed with many of his policies, as I did, but the vitriol that is directed at him by some people is in my view unjustified. He just happened to pursue some policies that some people took very strong views on – from both sides of the political spectrum.
Regarding self-interest – just remember that a nation the sum of it’s individuals. If everyone looked after their own self-interest (not always a bad thing) society as a whole would be a better place (and I mean self interest in a law abiding way!)
baldrick puts forward coherent, genuine responses. Pedro snipes from the sidelines and contributes nothing.
Chalk and cheese.
But I do agree with Deanl @ 22, esp wrt tribe mentality. It’s evident with Pedro’s comments.
“but the vitriol that is directed at him by some people is in my view unjustified. ”
Children overboard and Iraq war – Fuck him, if I had my way he’d be in jail. He deserves all the vitriol he gets and more.
“He just happened to pursue some policies that some people took very strong views on”
All decent people should be against inhumane policies, and the bullshit Iraq war, why would anybody agree to a war of choice where the intelligence was made to fit the plan? Look, he could have been bullshitted to by the likes of the US and UK, thing is if he was competent or honest we would have not gone to Iraq.
Ah yes, Conservatives are always champions of individual freedom, that’s why they’re advocates for the NT intervention and Aboriginal and immigrant controlled assimilation. “You will all do exactly as we say…as individuals.”
And that’s why Conservatives never have political party representation but are always political independents – they’re so anti-collective…Oh wait….
Conservatives are believers in forced individualism (see anti-Unionism) where it suits, to protect their own monopolies and self-interests. That is all.
Conservatives have come close to delivering us to a Corporate State many times and that is where our future lies under their influence and rule.
The Conservative definition of Individualism is really code for Select Conservative Collectivism…in my opinion.
Another Howard balls-up comes to an end:
Howard had no respect for our public institutions. The only thing he was interested in was delivering jobs for mates and fellow idealogues. Thank god he’s gone – I agree with Rob that he deserves all the vitriol he gets.
DeanL@26:
Your sounding like an anti-Bolt there….ie a lefty making assumptions about conservatives. I would say that the current so called conservative party in Australia is about as socially-democratic and lefty as the current Labor party!
After all, one of my bug bears with JWH was his massive escalation of welfare during his tenure – for people who didn’t need it!
People looking after their own self-interest, in the true sense of the term, don’t do things which require the government to intervene to help or hinder their progress.
RobJ@25 – our involvement in the Iraq war was so miniscule as to not even make a difference. The SAS squadron deployed to fight in the conventional phase could have been replaced at minimal effort by the U.S. or U.K. forces. But in order to allow Australia to maintain a Defence force at a much lower level than the percentage of GDP compared to similar nations and with less standing forces, we require a big friend who will come to our aid to guarantee our security. This means occasionally providing support to said ally. The biggest myth of JWH’s overseas deployments was that we were a major player in the conflicts – absolute crap. Our small force deployments (putting the SAS to one side) were deployed to the safest regions in these areas and given rules of engagement so strict, limited in their missions that they could undertake, and generally restricted by politically imposed rules as to be effectively inneffective. Hence they were token gestures. We did not matter at all in the larger picture. But we got a dividend in terms of strategic security for ourselves. Real-politik. Our biggest influence was our officers posted onto U.S. headquarters where our influence on operation’s guidelines, strategy and tactics resulted in more successful outcomes for the U.S. forces WITH less civilian casualties as we have a higher threshold of proof in determining whether a target is civilian free. If the U.S. is going to war, I want Australian influence over their planning as it will lead to LESS civilian casualties – this is the unrecognised impact of our involvement in these wars. If they are going to happen – and Iraq was going to happen with or without our involvement, better that we should influence the outcome rather than being an observer. There are people alive today that would not be if we were not involved. For instance, an SAS squadron forced the surrender of an Iraqi troop company by getting a U.S. jet to crack the sound barrier just over the cement works they were guarding. U.S. forces just would have got the jet to drop a bomb on it, and were advocating so at the time.
The Iraq war was a terrible misjudgement which will cause a lot of angst and suffering for a long time. I don’t worry about Saddam though – that fucker can rot in hell for eternity as far as I care.
So our involvement in Iraq was due to our “Special Alliance” with the U.S. and so minuscule to make a difference?Not only that, but our minuscule influence stopped the American forces killing innocent civilians.
So this is one of the excuses by the right to justify the involvement of what will probably go down as the biggest foreign policy fuck up by the U.S. of all time, aided and abetted by two of the most inveterate liars ever to grace the halls of the British and Australian parliaments..Culminating in the deaths of, depending on who you read, untold thousands of civilian casualties.
But it’s all justified because according to the bed wetting conservatives we are soon to be invaded by the Indonesians, or possibly the Chinese.But never fear just like the Iraq’s, Afghani’s, and the Vietnamese the Americans will save us.
It is it is remembrance day and it gives me pause to think about the times we were saved by the U.S. in justified wars.Those men and women would be turning in their graves if they knew what their sons and grandsons were now doing to bring freedom to the world.In the case of Iraq when the U.S. pulls out, it will be business as usual, another strongman probably a bathist will be running the show again.
The madness goes on.
“, we require a big friend who will come to our aid to guarantee our security. This means occasionally providing support to said ally.”
A TRUE friend to the US would have said, No and persuaded the US to not go. Howard and Blair are sycophants, not true friends.
“The biggest myth of JWH’s overseas deployments was that we were a major player in the conflicts”
Who thinks we were?
“Real-politik.” – Might = right! Fuck that!
“I want Australian influence over their planning as it will lead to LESS civilian casualties ”
We were a minor player, extremely minor…. What influence? “No we wont bomb that school with the laser guided bomb we had to buy off you!” Smart influence would have been, GW, you’re gonna fuck up, BIG TIME.
“this is the unrecognised impact of our involvement in these wars”
Well hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, our impact would be negligible.
baldrick, I’ll add, who is to say that the sycophancy of our former leader to the worst president in living history wont in the long term damage our relationship with the US?
“, we require a big friend who will come to our aid to guarantee our security. This means occasionally providing support to said ally.”
RobJ – you oversetimate our influence. We are a small nation with fuck all influence over world events. Face it – we don’t mean shit. I don’t like saying that be we are at best a bit player. You think GWB would have halted his actions if we said it was a bad idea?? C’mon! Where we did have influence is our senior officer on HQ staff. They directly influenced decisions made by star ranking officers in the U.S. forces that led to less loss of life and greater mission success in terms of security outcomes.
Gary M – Iraq is not a Vietnam, which is the biggest fuck up of all time. Who do you think has kept the world in check? The chinese? The Russians (note, not Soviets). But you are correct in citing the British – at least they had forces there that made a lick of differenct. And we have a large landmass, 40% of the world uranium, and shitloads of natural resources – why would any one want that? Do you think that our regional neighbours strategy departments, tucked deep away in secure areas, have not assessed what benefits and disadvantages there are in forceably taking these? If you think not, you do not know how foreign (and our) military and intelligence service work. Been there – seen it – reminded of the caveats on my security clearance (at the time) – we do it too. We have a big friend….that matters.
Understand clearly – and I am not denigrating the SAS who took part in the inital invasion here who crumped the Fedayeen forces – we did absolutely fuck all in the grand scheme of the war. Stop attributing big local issues with significant global issues. If we weren’t there – it still would have happened. End of story. Your objections, while ideologically based, mean nothing in terms of flesh and blood on the battlefield. WE SIMPLY ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT. It would have been symbolic to go in with the U.S. and symbolic to stay out – but it appears that some peoples feelings would have been spared if we stayed out.
Kevin, you are aware that NZ citizens are unable after feb 2001 (thanks to the liberals) to get help from centrelink or student loans etc because the 444 visa granted to kiwis excludes them from any social security benefits. Why if you believe that a tempoary visa grant to asylum sekers is cruel, do you allow this situation to continue for kiwis living here. Why do they pay taxes like everyone else and continue o build OZ but are denied the rights that refugees and asylum seekers enjoy by granting them PR . By using the 444 visa in this manner against kiwis Is this not both cruel and unusual punnishment?.
Baldrick, please spare me your expert opinion based on any previous military service you might have, you are not the only x military serving bloger here thank you very much.That Australia is under any threat from invasion from any of our neighbours to the north, is the stuff of conspiracy theories.You would be well aware Australia has humiliated the Indonesians in past encounters with our military, besides we have more than one friend to come to our aid should the usual right wing bogey man look for some “Lebensraum” I am well aware we are watching them, I am well aware we are eaves dropping on their military activity’s, that does not mean an invasion is coming any time soon.
As for the Chinese, they do not have to invade us to take our resources by force, they ‘re already taking them peacefully by trading with us.It is not an over the top statement at this juncture in our history to say, we need them, they do not need us.If they decide to not buy our coal,iron ore and other raw materials we will be in shit street.
As for Vietnam being a bigger fuck up than Iraq, I will leave that to historians for a conclusion at a later date.But what I can tell you is this, the expected arrival of the communists hordes on our shores that the right wing bed wetters predicted, and cost the lives of over 5k Americans,approx 580 Australians and God knows how many Asians, well I am still waiting.
As for who was keeping who in check in the cold war, I guess that all depends on your point of view.
“That Australia is under any threat from invasion from any of our neighbours to the north, is the stuff of conspiracy theories.”
GaryM – what are you willing to bet that you are right – or wrong. “Lebensraum” – nice….whos going to quote Goodwins law here. BTW it was 519 Australians KIA – not 580. Don’t need any wikipedia clarification on that – I recently declassified 8 years of patrol reports and tallied up the KIA figure myself.
Baldrick I hope your reading skills improve with your analysis, I said approx.That doesn’t mean exact, that means approximately.Still not a bad estimate from memory all the same, unlike you I didn’t go to Wikipedia for that.I don’t have to bet anything, my thoughts on the matter are like yours an opinion.Moreover you are no more qualified than I, to make it.
The theory that we are under some threat and invasion by our neighbours to the north is arrant nonsense, this conspiracy is the typical “bed wetting the right are famous for.The same theory was bandied about during the Vietnam conflict, the threat from the north by communists then had about the credibility that a Muslim Caliphate is going to take over the world now.
Gary,
who was it that took over South Vietnam then?? Was it the rabid capitalists? What happened to Cambodia? Laos? Good thing no countries fell to communism then.
It’s not about bed wetting – the U.S. has kept the world reasonably stable (thanks to the Cold war) for 60 odd years. No one could get out of line and those who did were dealt with (91 Gulf war). Any way, lets just can the ADF and put all that money into schools and the health system. What could possibly go wrong?
I could just as easily assert that from 1950 to 1989 it was the Soviet Union that kept the world reasonably stable since the threat of M.A.D curbed the worst excesses of US imperialism.
The current crop of Islamist nutters didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It is largely a response to the anything but stabilising policies and actions of the US.
baldrick, who took over Vietnam or Laos is totally irrelevant to the debate.
The war was fought on the basis of a load of lies.I was a serving grunt myself at the time, it was falsely promulgated, if we did not stop them in Vietnam they would be eventually in Sydney, arrant nonsense! They (the communists) were never a threat to us or were they doing anything that warranted the death of millions of Vietnamese. They were in essence fighting for their own government be that communist or otherwise..The war was a nationalist war, and nothing you or anyone else can say, is going to change that salient fact.If you know anything about the history of Vietnam, the communists invited free elections on at least two occasions during the conflict, and this was rejected by Washington.The history of this conflict is well known and even McNamara who ran it for most of it’s death and destruction, admitted it was a huge mistake.
That by the way is again from memory not Wikipedia.
Your contention that the U.S. has kept the world reasonably stable is based on what analysis? The only thing the U.S. has done post WW2 is involve itself in other countries affairs, resulting in the deaths of millions of people.
I have not suggested we can the ADF they like the local police force, are a necessary evil.Having said that, when they have people like Bush,Howard,Blair in control, they are being used not for fantasies of freedom but controlling resources, mostly other peoples.But if I advocate anything, it would be to spend just 10 % of the tax base that has been wasted on faux capitalist wars.
What could go wrong? Well a more educated and healthy society for a start.
Sorry, I missed your trick question. The answer, of course, is the Vietnamese took over South Vietnam.